3 ms·

Why is this a thing? The CAD files that serve as the input to the 3D printers are closer to deserving patent or trade secret protection than copyright. Copyri

by Nrsolis 14y ago

Why is this a thing? The CAD files that serve as the input to the 3D printers are closer to deserving patent or trade secret protection than copyright. Copyright protects "creative, intellectual, or artistic forms", not inventions or tangible things. (Don't get me started on "design patents"). We're definitely in new territory here, but 3D printers dont change anything other than the speed/ease by which a "thing" can be created. Before the Internet, there was tape-dubbing and the Xerox machine. Are there fewer songs or shows now? Fewer Books? Why are 3D printers any different? A little primer on intellectual property law for the laymen would be instructive here.

SEMW 14y ago
The theory is: - Sculpture is generally protected by copyright in Berne convention countries. - Copying includes reproducing a work in any material form. The fact that the process of making a copy involves CAD files isn't relevant: the result is a material reproduction of yoda. - Speed & ease isn't relevant either - hewing a copy of a copyrighted sculpture one from stone over a decade is just as much an infringement as 3d-printing is. A copy is a copy. (The difficult legal issue is what exactly a sculpture is. E.g. the UK has a narrower definition than the US, and in the UK yoda may not qualify as a sculpture - see my other comment). IANAL, just a UK law student
- Nrsolis 14y ago
  IANAL, either. But sculpture somehow brings to mind the idea that a "work" had an artistic component as opposed to a functional one. For instance, it might be infringement to "print" a copy of Michelangelo's David, but not a part of a handle to a door. In the latter, it's not a work of art, so merits no protection vs. design protection that it might get if it was a patentable invention.
  - SEMW 14y ago
    I've commented on that issue elsewhere in this thread (about a case on whether Star Wars stormtrooper helmets are copyrightable in the UK): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5250739 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5250739

by Nrsolis 14y ago

SEMW 14y ago

The theory is: - Sculpture is generally protected by copyright in Berne convention countries. - Copying includes reproducing a work in any material form. The fact that the process of making a copy involves CAD files isn't relevant: the result is a material reproduction of yoda. - Speed & ease isn't relevant either - hewing a copy of a copyrighted sculpture one from stone over a decade is just as much an infringement as 3d-printing is. A copy is a copy. (The difficult legal issue is what exactly a sculpture is. E.g. the UK has a narrower definition than the US, and in the UK yoda may not qualify as a sculpture - see my other comment). IANAL, just a UK law student

Nrsolis 14y ago
IANAL, either. But sculpture somehow brings to mind the idea that a "work" had an artistic component as opposed to a functional one. For instance, it might be infringement to "print" a copy of Michelangelo's David, but not a part of a handle to a door. In the latter, it's not a work of art, so merits no protection vs. design protection that it might get if it was a patentable invention.
- SEMW 14y ago
  I've commented on that issue elsewhere in this thread (about a case on whether Star Wars stormtrooper helmets are copyrightable in the UK): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5250739 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5250739